Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Connectivity with existing settlements is vital, and connectivity between existing settlements needs to be substantially upgraded, if overall gains are to be made. More and improved foot and cycle paths are needed virtually everywhere, not just alongside commuter routes.

Our heritage should be protected by preventing large developments going ahead near small existing settlements, conservation areas and historic assets, where the new is out of keeping with, and will overwhelm, the old.

There should be clear commitment to maintaining open landscapes, as large-scale developments simply destroy them. There should also be some mechanism for preventing cumulative erosion of a locality through successive proposals coming forward, instead of each one being considered on a piecemeal basis.

Unfortunately, the number of uninspiring buildings appearing in Cambridge over recent years does not suggest having a Plan necessarily achieves this laudable aim.

Somewhat important

Economic growth is important, but the scale intended by the GCP surely places a question mark over its sustainability. For instance, siting major commercial developments on greenfield agricultural land can hardly be portrayed as supporting a prosperous rural economy. At some point, the rural element is diminished to the point where it is lost forever. Cambridge City and the area to the south of Cambridge is prosperous and has low employment, so growth on the scale envisaged can only happen with significant inward migration by employees for the new commercial developments, which increases the need for housing and infrastructure to support everything. There is the risk that a vicious cycle is being created that will change the nature of South Cambridgeshire out of all recognition. It cannot be assumed that the success of the local economy over the last few decades will simply continue or be enhanced by drawing in more and more development. We are already seeing that inequality is increasing because the fruits of prosperity are not being distributed. It is not clear how simply having more development could change that trend.

We indeed have a highly mobile workforce who tend to move jobs much more frequently than they move house. In a recent survey just under 50% of respondents expected to move jobs. In such circumstances it would be unwise to encourage commercial developments on the edges of villages with the proviso that adjacent housing is provided by the developer, on the premise that this would reduce commuting. Not only would this be a recipe for encouraging greenfield developments just outside settlement frameworks, any gain in reduction of commuting times would disappear once employees moved jobs. Siting new homes near new employment opportunities also ignores the home to work trips of partners, school runs, shopping, social and entertainment trips. It may work as a short-term measure to increase the supply of new homes, but in the long run will only increase commuting and other unsustainable travel.

Providing tourist accommodation in rural areas might have a negative impact in that access would almost invariably be by private car. How is this consistent with the climate change agenda? Consideration of locating tourist accommodation in residential areas could contribute to a loosening of social cohesion.

Experience to date suggests that developers will continue to prefer building homes that many will struggle to afford. They are just not interested in providing smaller homes, whether for less affluent people or downsizers.

No, somewhat disagree

No. It is not explained in the consultation how providing an additional 30,000 homes “provides flexibility”. Having such a high target surely means that it is more likely that a five-year housing land supply will not be met at some time or times during the life of the Plan, at which point the GCP area would be vulnerable to speculative proposals from developers. To deliver such large numbers also suggests concentration on developing new settlements in order to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure, which could be contentious depending on potential locations. Development of the North East Cambridge or Cambridge Airport sites are not likely to be opposed by much of the GCP area outside Cambridge. The higher target is likely to result in the disappearance of many greenfield hectares and the urbanisation of what are currently rural locations in the GCP area.

Social housing is needed to reduce unsustainable commuting by essential but lower paid workers.